Actually, his money did buy him the liver.

Glad to see that we still have a modicum of capitalism in this country.   I much prefer people to pay for their healthcare needs, rather than bitch and moan that the government won't take care of them while they shine their nice shiney new rims for their lowrider...

Jobs needed a liver. He didn't wait for the insurance or government to pay for it.  He emptied his bank account and paid for it.  And people have a problem with this??

The doctor who saved my late wife's life back in 2002 lost his job a few years later and the transplant program shut down when he performed a liver transplant on a line-jumper.  I think he got a raw deal, but it was a more serious infraction than Jobs' case.

We need more donors.  Period.

Ron says"Jobs needed a liver. He didn't wait for the insurance or government to pay for it.  He emptied his bank account and paid for it.  And people have a problem with this??"

 I hate to clutter up your "Hurray for Capitalism" speech with silly things like facts and figures..

A liver transplant costs around $ 519,600. The estimated net worth of Steve Jobs is $5.4 billion.

I'd hardly call that "emptying out his bank account". I doubt many here would. Except for Bartley perhaps :-)

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if insurance paid the bulk of the cost, too.  I'd think a corporate exec has pretty good insurance.

What Jobs did was spend money an insurance company wouldn't have, to get himself in the shortest line (or lines) he could for a transplant.

 It wouldn't surprise me a bit if insurance paid the bulk of the cost, too. 

But you have no proof, as usual...Now why would the insurance company want to spend money on Jobs liver???  I thought they were in the business to make money?? 

Does anyone here really think Brain Dead Ted sits in any waiting lines for his healthcare???

But you have no proof, as usual...

I would be surprised if  Jobs *DIDN'T* have very good medical insurance paid for by his employer.  Why shouldn't I be?  Do you think, given the choice, Jobs would self-insure? 

.

Now why would the insurance company want to spend money on Jobs liver???

Because unlike the majority of their clients, Jobs would have the money to hurt them in court? 

 "...What scares the medical insurance groups is that they will have to reduce overhead to compete with the 3 to 4 percent overhead in the VA, Medicare ,Medical field. Today's medical insurers operate in the 30% to 40% overhead range..."

I had to chuckle when I read this.  

I have a close friend who is a vet, he has been to the VA hospital in LA four times now for a recurring cyst on his leg. On his first visit, he was given a 90 day supply of antibiotic - even though there was no culture taken to discern the proper antibiotic to use.

When the cyst only grew larger (big surprise there!), he returned to the VA hospital and he was admitted for a two-week stay. He was told his leg would have to be amputated due to the spreading infection.   He refused to allow his leg to be amputated and a culture was taken from the cyst and the proper antibiotic given. His leg healed and he went back to work after a short convalescence.

A couple months later, the cyst returned and he went back to the VA hospital where his initial visit care was repeated. After a week, he returned to the VA hospital and INSISTED the cyst be surgically removed. So now, finally, the cyst is gone - for good.

Low overhead does not equal quality care.  

In my humble opinion, the cost of medical care has risen proportionally to the number of malpractice lawsuits.  It's common knowledge most malpractice suits less than $100,000 are settled out of court to avoid actually litigating it in court - even if it is certain the doctor would win. It is "cheaper" to settle the suit than to fight it.  The lawyers know this and encourage lawsuits for almost anything relating to medical care.

Twenty years ago if a child bumped his head on a table, the parent would be instructed to observe the child closely and return to the emergency room if necessary.  Now, because of the threat of malpractice, this same child with a bump on his head will receive a CAT scan or MRI and a whole battery of tests - EVEN IF THERE IS NO INDICATION IT IS NECESSARY - simply to have a defensible position should the parents decide to sue.

That's a LOT of money wasted on unnecessary tests that could be put to better use treating other patients. 

dosen't wait in lines, there are lines of Dr.s waiting on him.

dosen't wait in lines, there are lines of Dr.s waiting on him.

Neither did Michael Jackson.  Got all the medical attention he could pay for. 

.

Low overhead does not equal quality care.

No, it doesn't.  But the VA has been in the forefront of several medical care advances.  

CurtDalton,

I completely agree with you about the severely lacking system in place at the VA.  My fiance has been to the VA in Los Angeles five times for various tests regarding a injury he received when he was blown off of a flight deck.  We have not received the results of any test (MRI's, etc) that were taken over six months ago.  Every time we went, the doctor told us they didn't have the results from the old test and we would have to wait.  We went back for his last appointment and were told there was a problem with the doctor and we would have to take all these tests over again.  Not to mention that it takes a lot of money to have to drive up there all the time (when the VA tells you to be there, don't try to reschedule cause that will cause a two month delay).  There is a shuttle here in Bakersfield but it only goes up on certain days and we can't get the Los Angeles VA to schedule appointments for those days to help with finances. 

We recently went to a meeting with other veterans and their significant others where the VA had hired a research group to look into feelings about the way the VA works.  All of the 30+ people there were extremely unhappy with the care they receive, from problems with prosthetics to incorrect diagnosis.  We get scheduled for appointments with no idea what they are for.  We went to Fresno once for an MRI appointment (at least, that's what the VA here told us it was for) and when we got there, they had my fiance see a dermatologist for athlete's foot.  Are you kidding?  We wouldn't have driven down there for that!

This, on top of the numerous scares with HIV and problematic cancer treatment, along with the Congressional Review of the VA and it's procedures, is why I don't agree with a public plan.  The government can't even treat our vets right!

is why I don't agree with a public plan.

The insurance companies certainly believe folks would like a public plan.   I would, too.  I've seen it up close and it works.

RF,

Okay, how about this...I don't agree with a government run plan.  Because I've seen it up close and it doesn't work.

Luckily, you can still go the private route.

JFrancais,

Yes, I am lucky.  I worked hard to get a job that provided insurance and I've worked at that job since I was 18.  My parents taught me that I'd have to take care of myself, so I'm lucky that I did at such a young age.

 Why do you put words in his mouth. Why do you change his words to fit your agenda?

because he lies, and we are smart enough to see where he is going with this.  this is actually a great blog for capitalism.  work hard , and you will be rewarded

compared to

dont work, and schlep by

A lot of people do "take care of themselves" and still lose in this system.  There's something wrong with this system.

because he lies, 

So *YOU* lie about what he says to fit your preconceived (and ignorant) notions.    Because you can't find any lie to point to.

JFrancais,

I agree that people get screwed by the system, I guess my anger comes from those that voluntarily don't work and use the system "because they can."  I feel like if I have had to work 10 years and will have to work another 32 to provide for myself and my family, any who can, should try to provide for themselves.  I agree that the system needs overhauling but I am not sure the options being presented are the way to go.

I'm sure from reading my posts you can understand my wariness with regards to a government controlled plan.

pretty weak there RF.  now your saying obama has never lied ?? Because you can't find any lie to point to.

my dumbest dogs ass is smarter than that.  find out why socialized medicine countries like canada and England are moving away from the model YER BOY wants to stick us with

honestly...too much time in the blogosphere makes one in desperate need of a reality check.

....next your going to attack my livelyhood....just like any loser would

I definitely understand which is why I think a dual system (public v. private) is a healthy compromise.  If it turns out that private industry is meeting the needs of the American people then everyone wins.

My experience is different from yours but yours is no less valid.  At the end of the day, we both agree things are seriously screwed up and something needs to be done.  What is the answer?  I wish I knew.

JFrancais,

I think a public system could be an option if there was some type of check and balance to make sure it is working fairly and not causing an overwhelming rise in costs to those who don't use the program.  My concern is always if the costs of health insurance don't go down, but those on a public plan get a discount, the health care industry will try to recoup those costs elsewhere, which would more than likely be those with private plans. 

Do I want people to have to go without health care? No.  No I think the system needs to be fixed?  Yes.  Do I think the rest of us should buckle down and live within a certain means just to help provide for those who can't provide for themselves?  No.  I mean, if I work hard for my money, I should be able to buy the car I like, the house I want, etc.  I shouldn't have to live below my means just to support others.  I think that something needs to be done to balance it out...maybe tax cuts for those who are having to pay more to take care of others?  To be honest, I have no idea how to fix the system and I don't think the government does either.  It's too bad people can't work to come up with joint solutions instead of making it so politicized that no one can agree on anything.

By the way, thank you for being so nice about us seeing different perspectives but the same problem.  =-)

I'm convinced that if we had the poitical will we could change it (i.e. have a government based solution) without rasing taxes.  I believe we spend a lot of money where there is political will.  We've spent billions in the name of defense and given aid to foreign nations when political leaders deem that it is in the nations interest.  For once, the health care issue has momentum and is being addressed so that's at least a start.  I don't think politicans really have an answer, either since they are so used to dealling with interest groups and letting them do the talking.

Not quite, learnem.  I'm saying *YOU* can't find a single lie. 

But you're not very good at analyzing information, so it's arguably much harder for you to do so than for me.  Probably not fair for me to expect anything but refluxive parroting from FoxNews out of you.

See, I didn't even *HAVE* to attack your "livelihood."  And as for your dumbest dog, he's arguably smarter than the guy who feeds him.

Witters

BUT.............TK, would/will you and your friends still be able to have those same wonderful doctors under "O"'s plan? I can, now, go to any hospital, any doctor (last year had to go to a specialist at UCLA) and I pay my deductible and my insurance picks up the rest.

How much do you pay for your medical insurance premiums????  I bet most if not all of your insurance is provided by the taxpayers of Calfiornia.  I know mine is.  Maybe it's time we provided everyone with what WE get.